Claims zoners have failed the town miserably'

In taking this stance the Armstrongs are defending the rights of all property owners who live south of Route 37 and west of Route 7 in particular, and in the town of New Milford in general.

James Fulton, attorney for the Armstrongs, has called it correctly: "I know an illegal zoning change when I see one."

The Zoning Commission has failed miserably in protecting the rights of property owners south of Route 37 and west of Route 7 and ultimately throughout the entire town.

By being dazzled with financial windfalls by a developer who wanted to sell his product in the best possible light, the Zoning Commission has decided (along with the guidance of the town's attorney) to redesign the zoning laws to accommodate this developer and his project. This was done at the expense of property owners in the above-mentioned areas.

No consideration was given to the impact that a project of this magnitude and density would have on property values or the quality of life now enjoyed in this area ( 508 units; upwards of 1,000 residents; upwards of 1,000 or more vehicles and future properties to be developed).

The Dunham property was originally zoned for single-family homes on one and a half to two-acre lots in keeping with the tenor of this neighborhood. Now Vespera Investments wants to build a town atop Candlewood Mountain.

As an example of their previous work, Vespera has touted a development they completed in Rhode Island. But this project was built on land that was considered a "remediation site." Candlewood Mountain majestically overlooking Candlewood Lake is hardly a remediation site.

Recently, Vince McDermott, an outside consultant hired by the town to review this project stated that this new zoning regulation, "allows for other developments that meet the criteria for parcels more than 150 acres in the section of town south of Route 37, north of Jerusalem Hill Road and west of Route 7."

He prefaced his remarks by saying this is not "spot zoning." Well, if this type of zoning is not "spot or preferential zoning," the question begs to be asked, what is?

The truthful answer is that it is blatant preferential zoning earmarking one section of town for this type of development while publicly appeasing other politically strong and resistant sections of town with reassurances that we won't develop parcels there.

In the public hearings that were held this fall, the Zoning Commission failed to heed the concerns brought forth by neighboring residents.

Their seemingly "ho-hum" attitude left many residents leaving those hearings with the belief that their words fell upon deaf ears and that this development was already "in the bag." Early comments of support by the mayor and others for the project further added fuel to this belief.

Vespera developer Karl Frey was recently quoted as saying, "We have gotten a terrific project approved through the town."

The question one has to ask is, what does Karl Frey know that we the taxpaying residents don't? Has Inland Wetlands, the Board of Finance and the rest of the approval process already been preapproved or rubber stamped for this project? Are they being pressured to approve?

The New Milford Zoning Commission's egregious actions with regard to the Vespera development requires closer scrutiny. Perhaps through the litigation process brought on by the Armstrongs' appeal, the truth will come to the surface.

Regardless of the outcome, I believe the actions of the Zoning Commission in this instance and others, coupled with the recent resignations and problems plaguing other town commissions, namely the Ethics Commission and the Economic Development Council, warrant an outside look into the "politics" and "business as usual" in New Milford.

It has become increasingly clear that New Milford is in dire need of an enema. Perhaps with an independent review possible appointed by State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the necessary dosages of medication can be administered.